4 ms·

FWIW, some benchmarks say GraphicsMagick is faster than ImageMagick. http://www.compsci.wm.edu/SciClone/documentation/software/graphics/gm-1.3.7/benchmarks.html

by orr94 12y ago

FWIW, some benchmarks say GraphicsMagick is faster than ImageMagick. http://www.compsci.wm.edu/SciClone/documentation/software/graphics/gm-1.3.7/benchmarks.html http://www.compsci.wm.edu/SciClone/documentation/software/gr... I suggest actually timing some of this stuff before writing off the idea. If an image can be processed in 1 second, and you can parallelize it to 4 cores, some quick and dirty (and probably useless) math says 2 million images could be done in just under 6 days. I don't think that's too shabby for 2 million images.

Igglyboo 12y ago
I'd assume that the bottle neck would be I/O if these images are ~30mb as the OP stated in the thread. I don't think you'd see 4x speedups from parallelizing.
- orr94 12y ago
  Good point. All the more reason to actually measure and find the bottleneck.
- chippy 12y ago
  Would faster disks / SSD's help in this case?
  - morpher 12y ago
    Not if the data has to be read from the slow disks to get it onto the fast ones.